Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Namkee Park
University of Oklahoma, USA
Hayeon Song
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, USA
Michael J. Cody
University of Southern California, USA
ABSTRACT
This study examines factors (including gender, self-monitoring,
the big five personality traits, and demographic characteristics)
that influence online dating service users strategic misrepre-
sentation (i.e., the conscious and intentional misrepresenta-
tion of personal characteristics). Using data from a survey of
online dating service users (N = 5,020), seven categories of mis-
representation personal assets, relationship goals, personal
interests, personal attributes, past relationships, weight, and
age were examined. The study found that men are more likely
to misrepresent personal assets, relationship goals, personal
interests, and personal attributes, whereas women are more
likely to misrepresent weight. The study further discovered
that self-monitoring (specifically other-directedness) was the
We would like to thank Paul Mongeau and three anonymous reviewers. Portions of this manu-
script were presented at the 2008 meeting of the National Communication Association annual
conference in San Diego, CA. All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jeffrey A. Hall, Department of Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Bailey Hall,
1440 Jayhawk Blvd., Room 102, Lawrence, KS 660457574, USA [e-mail: hallj@ku.edu]. John
Caughlin was the Action Editor on this article.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships The Author(s), 2010. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 27(1): 117135.
DOI: 10.1177/0265407509349633
118 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
On average, men prefer thinner mates (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Pawlowski
& Koziel, 2002). Therefore, women are more inclined to misrepresent their
weight. In online contexts, weight is perceived to be the topic most common
of misrepresentation by women (Ellison et al., 2006). Toma et al. (2008)
compared the online dating service users actual weight and age with the
images presented on their online dating profile and found that women were
more likely than men to underestimate their weight. Gender differences in
misrepresentation were also found in photographs posted in online dating
sites (Hancock & Toma, 2009). Female profile photos were judged as less
accurate and more elaborated (i.e., retouched or taken by a professional
photographer) than were those of males. Therefore, we offer the following
hypothesis:
younger mates. For example, men in their thirties prefer women who are
roughly five years younger, but men in their fifties prefer women who are
ten to twenty years younger (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). Although men
consider younger women as more desirable and attractive, this is not true
for women (Haselton et al., 2005). Women seek men who are typically the
same age or older than they are (de Backer, Braeckman, & Farinpour,
2008). In order to match mens desired age range for a partner, older
women will be more likely to strategically misrepresent their age than
younger women. We offer the following hypothesis:
H2b: In comparison to men, women will be more likely to strategically
misrepresent their age.
Because potential partners seek out healthier and more attractive partners,
younger mates are preferred to older mates for both sexes (Kenrick et al.,
1996). In comparison to young individuals, this will increase the likelihood
of older individuals misrepresenting their age. However, Toma et al. (2008)
reported no relationship between participants actual age and misrepresen-
tation of age. They suggest that future research should validate this finding
with a larger and older sample. To explore this relationship, we propose the
following research question:
RQ2: What is the relationship between participants actual age and misrep-
resentation of age? Is there an interaction effect between gender and age?
Refined from a large set of traits, the Big Five factor model (FFM) of
neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness
has been related to relationship behaviors in past research (Gaines, 2007).
Specifically, personality traits affect relationship initiation (Barelds &
Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007) and warrant greater attention in the study of court-
ship (Schmitt, 2004). Several studies indicate relationships between per-
sonality and misrepresentation. Neuroticism is positively related to using
deception to get a date (Rowatt et al., 1998). Extraverts have a greater
interest in sex and sexual variety, and engage in more romantic infidelity
(Nettle, 2005). Therefore, extraverts may be more likely to use strategic
misrepresentation to achieve relational goals. Moreover, individuals low in
conscientiousness have little regard for future consequences and are likely
to favor immediate opportunities (Nettle & Clegg, 2008). Such individuals
would also be more inclined to misrepresent themselves to achieve rela-
tional goals. Similarly, individuals low in agreeableness would be willing to
harm others in order to achieve personal goals (Nettle & Clegg, 2008).
Finally, those high in openness are creative, possess interesting talents, and
have had a variety of experiences. As a consequence, this may increase their
mating value, and decrease the likelihood of misrepresentation. Those who
are low in openness may be more likely to misrepresent because they lack
attractive experiences and talents. In light of these past research findings,
we propose the following hypotheses:
H3: Neuroticism (H3a) and extraversion (H3b) will positively predict strategic
misrepresentation, whereas conscientiousness (H3c), agreeableness (H3d),
and openness (H3e) will negatively predict strategic misrepresentation.
Hall et al.: Strategic misrepresentation 123
Demographic characteristics
As de Backer et al. (2008) noted, it is much easier to present oneself in
desirable ways if one actually possesses desirable attributes. Highly desir-
able mates (e.g., young, attractive, wealthy, intelligent, healthy, and possess-
ing good personality) have high reward value to nearly all potential suitors,
both for short-term and long-term mating (Evans & Brase, 2007; Kenrick,
Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993; Regan & Dreyer, 1999). Conversely, in com-
parison with less educated or less wealthy individuals, potential suitors who
have more education and money will be less inclined to misrepresent their
personal assets. The relative gain of misrepresentation for a less educated
or less wealthy individual will be greater than that of a more educated or
wealthier individual. In addition, if the demographic factors of education
and income affect misrepresentation of personal assets, it would be logical
to assume that those demographic factors influence misrepresentation of
other aspects as well, including relationship goals or personal interests.
Thus, we set forth the following research question:
Method
Sample
An online survey was administered to users of a large online dating site that
utilizes an algorithm, based on user responses, to match users with potential
dating partners. The survey link was provided in an e-mail newsletter in
February 2007. No incentive was offered for the completion of this survey.
The final data set included 5,020 participants. Participants were 74% female,
and an average age of 39.8 years old (range 1896, SD = 11.4). The median
education level was a bachelors degree, and the median household income
was $40,00060,000. Participants were primarily White, non-Hispanic (83.2%),
with 4.1% Hispanic, 5.3% African-American, 3.5% Asian-American, and
3.6% other. Respondents geographical location was not measured, but
users of this dating service reside throughout the US. Fifty-two percent of
participants indicated that their marital status was single, never married,
whereas 42.5% were divorced, 4.2% were separated, 1.4% widowed, and
.3% indicated they were married. Slightly more than two-thirds (67.4%) of
124 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
the sample indicated that they were not in a romantic relationship, 22%
were casually dating, 7.6% were seriously dating or engaged to be married,
and 2.7% listed other.
Measurements
Embedded in a larger survey about participants use of the online dating
service and their experience on recent dates, instructions for the strategic
misrepresentation section asked respondents to self-report their likelihood
of misrepresenting themselves online to get a date. Instructions did not
specify how this misrepresentation could occur (i.e., whether using e-mail
or creating a profile). Based on past research on gender differences in
deception (e.g., Haselton et al., 2005; OSullivan, 2008) and online misrep-
resentation (e.g., Ellison et al., 2006; Toma et al., 2008), target items tapped
five foci of strategic misrepresentation: (i) personal assets, (ii) relationship
goals, (iii) personal interests, (iv) personal attributes, and (v) past relation-
ship. For all foci, items were accompanied by a 10-point scale, ranging from
not at all likely (1) to very likely (10).
Five items measured misrepresentation of personal assets (e.g., income,
education; = .85). Three items measured representation of relationship
goals (e.g., level of interest in a serious relationship; = .83). Seven items
measured misrepresentation of personal interests (e.g., how much the
participant liked a particular TV program; = .92). Four items measured
misrepresentation of personal attributes (e.g., politeness; = .91). Finally,
three items measured misrepresentation of past relationships (e.g., relation-
ship history; = .79).
Results
A series of t-tests were conducted to test the first and second sets of
hypotheses and RQ1. The first set of hypotheses was about comparison
between men and women in terms of misrepresentation in personal assets
(H1a) and relationship goals (H1b). Given that we collected the data from
a large sample (N = 5,020), we set the significance level at .001. The t-tests
revealed that men (M = 2.01, SD = 1.49) were more likely to misrepresent
Hall et al.: Strategic misrepresentation 125
FIGURE 1
Gender and age group difference in willingness to misrepresent age
2.4
2.2
Misrepresentation of age
2
Female
Male
1.8
1.6
1.4
20s 30s 40s 50s
Age
With respect to RQ4, higher education was a positive predictor for mis-
representation of relationship goals and personal interests. In addition,
higher income was a positive predictor for misrepresentation of past rela-
tionships.
To answer RQ5, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses
while varying the order of self-monitoring, personality traits, and gender.
Results were identical across the different orders of block entry. Self-
monitoring (other-directed and actor) was the most prominent predictor
for all dependent variables except for weight (see Table 2). The FFM vari-
ables had the second largest predictive effects on misrepresentation, except
for weight. Gender had the largest predictive impact on misrepresentation
of weight. For other types of misrepresentation, the effects of gender were
extremely small.
Discussion
Dependent variables
Predictors Beta
Hall et al.: Strategic misrepresentation
TABLE 2
R-square changes from the blocks of predictors
Dependent variables
Blocks R2 changes
REFERENCES
Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679686.
Burgoon, J. K., & Walther, J. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences
of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232265.
Buss, D. M., & Schmidt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204232.
Cornwell, B., & Lundgren, D. C. (2001). Love on the internet: Involvement and misrepresen-
tation in romantic relationships in cyberspace vs. realspace. Computers in Human Behavior,
17, 197211.
de Backer, C., Braeckman, J., & Farinpour, L. (2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. In
G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds reproduc-
tive system (pp. 77101). New York: LEA.
Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation
processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,
11(2). Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html
Evans, K., & Brase, G. L. (2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in mate preferences:
Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24,
781791.
Gaines, S. O. (2007). Personality and personal relationships: An introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 475478.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 126, 530555.
Geher, G., Miller, G., & Murphy, J. (2008). Mating intelligence: Toward an evolutionarily
informed construct. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships,
and the minds reproductive system (pp. 334). New York: LEA.
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals: The
role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in internet
dating. Communication Research, 33, 126.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Grammer, K., Kruck, K., Juette, A., & Fink, B. (2000). Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals:
The role of control and choice in selecting partners. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21,
371390.
Hancock, J. T., & Dunham, P. J. (2001). Impression formation in computer-mediated commu-
nication revisited. Communication Research, 28, 325347.
Hancock, J. T., Thom-Santelli, J., & Ritchie, T. (2004). Deception and design: The impact of
communication technology on lying behavior. In E. Dykstra-Erickson & M. Tscheligi (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 129134).
New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. (2009). Putting your best face forward: The accuracy of online dating
photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367386.
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic inter-
ference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 31, 323.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait
taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, &
L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114158). New York:
Guilford Press.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and
social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involve-
ment level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
951969.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in repro-
ductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75133.
134 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 27(1)
Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Gabrielidis, C., & Cornelius, J. S. (1996). Adolescents age prefer-
ences for dating partners: Support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child
Development, 67, 14991511.
Kunkel, A. D., Wilson, S. R., Olufowote, J., & Robson, S. (2003). Identifying implications of
influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal
of Communication, 67, 382412.
Lawson, H. M., & Leck, K. (2006). Dynamics of internet dating. Social Science Computer
Review, 24, 189208.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1991). Computer-mediated communication, deindividuation, and group
decision-making. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 283301.
Lea, M., & Spears, R. (1992). Paralanguage and social perception in computer-mediated
communication. Journal of Organizational Computing, 2, 321341.
Leary, M. R. (2001). The self we know the self we show: Self-esteem, self-presentation, and the
maintenance of interpersonal relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.),
Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 457477). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 26, 363373.
Nettle, D., & Clegg, H. (2008). Personality, mating strategies, and mating intelligence. In G.
Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds reproductive
system (pp. 121134). New York: Erlbaum.
OSullivan, M. (2008). Deception and self-deception as strategies in short- and long-term
mating. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the minds
reproductive system (pp. 135157). New York: Erlbaum.
OSullivan, P. (2000). What you dont know wont hurt me: Impression management functions
of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 25, 689715.
Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139149.
Regan, P. C., & Dreyer, C. S. (1999). Lust? Love? Status? Young adults motives for engaging
in casual sex. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 11, 118.
Rowatt, W. C., Cunningham, M. R., & Druen, P. R. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 12281242.
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The big five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions:
Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. Euro-
pean Journal of Personality, 18, 301319.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The
evolutionary psychology handbook (pp. 258291). New York: Wiley.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence
for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
870883.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New
York: Freeman.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1992). Social influence and the influence of the social in computer-
mediated communication. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication
(pp. 3065). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon: The hidden power in computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research, 21, 427459.
Sprecher, S., Schwartz, P., Harvey, J., & Hatfield, E. (2008). TheBusinessofLove.com: Relation-
ship initiation at internet matchmaking services. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey
(Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 249268). New York: Psychology Press Taylor
and Francis Group.
Toma, C., Hancock, J., & Ellison, N. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of
deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 10231036.
Hall et al.: Strategic misrepresentation 135